Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Aug -> Here

From: Andy Denne - A.U.R.A. <aura@telekabel2.nl>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:40:55 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 06:18:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Korff & Pleiadian Physics


>Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:09:22 +0200
>To: UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jeroen Jansen <jj4747@dds.nl>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Korff & Pleiadian Physics

>>The argument that you asked a member of the Meier-cult doesn't
>>really do it for me aswell. When i tried to contact FIGU on a
>>completely different matter, I was given different answers on
>>the same questions from them. Also to me it is the same than
>>trying to get an abused wife to leave her husband, won't work!

>>Why?

>>Simply because she absolutely 'believes' in her husband. Sure
>>honey I'm gonna change, it wasn't meant to be that hard...new
>>excuse everytime. Same with Meier's followers, no matter how
>>many facts you shuff under there nose, they _do_not_want_to_
>>listen_! They just KNOW you're wrong and they're right... :)

>Well, why don't you contact them and see if you get another
>answer regarding the question whether that water pond has any
>esoteric meaning?


Would a judge aspect a suspect to deliver the evidence for his
own conviction?

For every critical answer that gets asked, FiGU can come up with
ten ludicrous answers, sure, but reading FiGU's homepage one
must draw the conclusion they pretty much put an esoteric
meaning to everything.


><snip>

>>>With that important issue taken care of, perhaps Korff could be
>>>induced to discuss those parallel or congruent sets of
>>>quasi-horizontal scratch-like marks that appear on some of his
>>>Meier photos presented in his book (of which no such marks
>>>showed on Wendelle Stevens' 2nd-generation photo material
>>>derived from Meier's originals). For many months Korff has
>>>refused to respond to our previous requests on this. Why did he
>>>not immediately notice that such marks in no way resemble a UFO
>>>model support line? As anyone knows who has hung a piece of
>>>clothing on an empty clothesline, at the point of suspension
>>>above the hung clothing the support line takes on a shallow V
>>>configuration. The point of the V is the point of suspension.
>>>Same with a suspended model UFO. None of the scratch-like marks
>>>on Korff's photo reproductions show any such configuration or
>>>perturbation. This should have been immediately obvious to a UFO
>>>investigator.

>>The V wouldn't _have_ to be visible. But why bother about the
>>indeed somewhat sloppy parts of Kal's research, if there has
>>been proven _over_and_over_again_ that Meier is an absolute
>>fraud.

>You confuse evidence with proof here. You should keep in mind
>here that _scientific proof_ stands for phenomena which can be
>reproduced; observations that, under certain fixed conditions,
>can be made by anybody; observation upon which normal people can
>agree. The UFO phenomenon is sporadic and can't be reproduced.
>When in science reproducable observations aren't possible, in
>other words, when irrefutable direct evidence is missing,
>"facts" are establised by means of critical, rational and
>unbiased discussions of all the available (indirect) evidence.
>ufology is an indirect evidence business at best and something
>is seldom really proven in ufology. The 'explantions' and
>'facts' in ufology do only indicate how probable something is
>according to certain persons.

Or how willing others are to believe without looking any
further. (Waar is die Hollandse nuchterheid ;-)???)  [sorry
list]

>So what you actually mean by writing "it has been proven over
>and over again that Meier is an absolute fraud." is  "I think
>it's very likely that the case a hoax!".

No, What I meant by writing "it has been proven over and over
again that Meier is an absolute fraud" I MEANT TO WRITE: It has
been proven that Meier is an absolute fraud!"

But if you want to write my posts for me...well... :)

>The question then is what's the basis of your conviction?

What are your points for your convictions then? A Meier-groupie
told me so? That sounds REAL scientific Jeroen..

>>Our dear collegue Bruce Maccabee did great research on a
>>Meier-film in, 94 or '95 I suppose it was and _proved_ it to be
>>a model attached to some strings. Why should Meier get the
>>benefit of the doubt given to him by Jim Deardorff or Jeroen
>>Janssen?

>What he did was making a case for the hoax hypothesis.
>Presenting evidence, no scientific proof.

In any court someone with enough bodies of evidence _against_
that person would be convicted. Simply because after adding all
the evidence up it turns in to indirect _proof_. Maccabee's
research was merely a part of the puzzle.


>>Remember the Asket and Nera-fiasco and the absolutely lame
>>excuse Meier came up with?

>Again it's evidence for a hoax, but doesn't prove hoaxing by
>Meier, other possibilities remain open, like alien
>disinformation hypothesis, should also always be kept in mind.

Aliens, I thought the MiB did it !?!?

Why would the aliens pose for a picture (reflecting the
tv-screen, LMAO) and afterwards replace them by fakes? What's
the use of taking the picture then??? Besides that Meier claimed
it was the MiB who did it.

>>Remember the tree that mysteriously vanished? Without ANY trace?

>Yes, it stands in my garden now. :-) There certainly is indirect
>evidence that a tree once stood there Stevens on p. 49 of his
>book _UFO contact from the Pleiades: a _Preliminary Ivestigation
>Report_ states that an acquaintance of Meier upon seeing the
>developed pictures of the 9 July, Fuchsb=FCel am Hofhalden
>sequence, located  the exact spots from which the pictures were
>taken. "He found that the grass here was 20 to 30 centimeters
>higher than the other grass around."

Since when does higher grass indicate there was a tree ones? I
would be curious to know!

>But also consider that two persons claim to have seen this tree.

Yes, many people have claimed they've seen Elvis too...two
witnesses isn't too covincing, now is it?

>But can you be more specific about how then these photos were
>hoaxed? A model tree?

I didn't make them too, Jeroen, ask Billy :-)

>>Remember even his wife saying it'a all a hoax. (Ever since the
>>'70s! Meier claims so himself!)

>She was several times a member of a group of people who had a
>UFO sighting. So there's a multiple witness aspect to keep in
>mind.

I had multiple witness sightings too, but none of the people
present at that time believe for JUST ONE SECOND that Meier is
for real. Guess that goes for Kaliope too...

>>Remember Meier was seen purchasing helium several times.

>Can you list more details about this. Source? etc.

I'll look it up for you and send it to you.

FiGU admitted freely in our phone-conversation that Meier
purchased helium. You can read the transcript of that in the
latest Frontier2000, a dutch UFO magazine.

>>Remember the proven cut & paste-edge on picture #200?

>Was the jpg  from the FIGU site really the source material for
>this analysis ?

Haha, this is _so_ typical, first they complain that others
might have manipulated the pictures now this...

Well, if that's all that it takes to determine _clear_
cut-and-paste edges while they're trying to pass'em for real,
what more would you want???

>>Etc., etc., etc.

>>The list above makes you wonder why Meier is still an issue...
>>Maybe we should accept Rael as truthfull as well, or maybe the
>>Heaven's Gate cult was right also...

>>A surprised and wonderin'

>There's much UFO data in this case which is simply being ignored
>by most UFO researchers, that data shows that the hoax
>hypothesis is much more complicated. That data may have
>important consequences for the ETH. It indicates that "they may
>be playing games with us." And You only have to study the
>available Meier case literature to find this out. By doing that
>you will also find out how 'scientific and unbiased' Korff's
>work really is.

What makes you think I didn't?

The more Meier material one reads the more it becomes obvious
the man's a cult leader making a good living of the ones naieve
enough to believe his BS!


With Kind Regards,

Andy Denne
(A.U.R.A.)
Nijmegen
The Netherlands
aura@telekabel2.nl